The Xiphium Section 215 
certainly I. xiphioides, and also the Hortus Cliffortianus which refers us to Bauhin's I. bulbosa lute a 
inodora , which in its turn is based on Clusius, Hisp. p. 276 /. bulbosa august i/olia flore luteo, which 
is undoubtedly a form of I. xiphium. (Cf. the specimen, named I. xiphium, in the Smithian Herbarium 
at the Linnaean Society which is obviously I. xiphioides.) 
This confusion is the more surprising in view of the fact that in this case, as in several others, 
Clusius was well aware of the difference between the two species and carefully described them both. 
There are doubtless many forms of this Iris even in the wild state but we should scarcely be 
justified in separating as species forms which differ merely in size or in the time at which they flower. 
The largest, as well as the earliest, form is probably that which is known to dealers as “/. filifolia!' 
It has nothing to do with the true I. filifolia , as will be seen by comparing Plates XLIII and XLIV. 
The pseudo-filifolia has the characteristic short tube of I. xiphium, while that of I. filifolia is always 
of some length. Another obvious difference is to be found in the shape of the standards. This pseudo- 
filifolia flowers in April and May and grows apparently in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar, while the 
true plant grows actually on the Rock itself. 
On the other hand, at an altitude of over 5000 feet, further north, specimens of I. xiphium are 
found which do not flower until August or September. The Roquehaute form also flowers late. 
Many garden forms of this Iris have long been known. Gerard in his Herball (1597) mentions 
among “ certaine bulbose or Onion rooted Flower-de-luces ” an Iris bulbosa flore vario and the name 
probably means that he knew more than one form of the plant. The Hortus Eystettensis (1613) has 
about a dozen forms and in Simula’s Flora exotica (1720, BM) eight varieties are depicted. 
In recent years many fine large-flowered forms have been introduced into cultivation under the 
name of Dutch Irises. These were raised by the well-known firm of C. G. Van Tubergen, Junr., of 
Haarlem, who tell me that I. Boissieri, I. tingitana, and other species were used as well as /. xiphium. 
The pollen of these species seems however to have had little effect except in increasing the vigour of 
the plants and the size of the flowers, for I can see no trace in any of the specimens that I have 
grown or seen illustrated of the long perianth tube that is found in all the species except in I. xiphium. 
It may be that the absence of tube is dominant over its presence and that specimens with obvious 
linear perianth tubes will occur in the next generation of these hybrids, but on the other hand there is 
no doubt that hybrids with flowers at least as early and as fine as those of these Dutch Irises can be 
obtained by crossing the early form of I. xiphium already described, and for which I. xiphium var. praecox 
would be a not inappropriate name, with pollen of garden varieties of I. xiphium. This, at least, has 
certainly been the result of some crosses which I made several years ago and from which I have ob- 
tained a number of fine seedlings, which come into flower in the last week of May. 
The absence of the linear perianth tube in any of these so-called Dutch Irises is the more remark- 
able because there is in existence a hybrid of I. tingitana crossed with pollen of /. xiphium, raised 
by Foster, in which the linear tube is half an inch or more long. This hybrid is of great garden 
value for the growth and the flowers are practically identical with those of I. tingitana and yet the 
plants flower freely and the flowers survive when those of /. tingitana succumb in the bud stage to 
late spring frosts. In 1912 this hybrid was actually in flower in the open on April 15th in Surrey. 
For the cultivation of I. xiphium, see the introduction to the section, p. 210. 
t I. JUNCEA 
Poiret, Vo y. Barb. II. 85 (1789). 
•Desfontaines, FI. Atl. I. p. 39, t. 4 (1798). 
Gussone, Suppl. FI. Sic. Prod. p. 159 (1832). 
Synopsis Florae Siculae, I. p. 40 (1842). 
Munby, FI. Alger, p. 6 (1847). 
Willdenow, Sp. PI. 1. p. 235 (1797)- 
•The Garden, Dec. 10th, 1898. 
Richter, Plant. Eur. I. p. 258 (1890). 
Synonyms. 
Xiphion junceum , Parlat. FI. Ital. ill. p. 304 (1858). 
Klatt in Linnaea xxxiv. p. 570 (1866). 
•Bot. Mag. 5890 (1871). 
Baker in Joum. Bot. 1871. p. 41- 
in J. L. S. xvi. p. 123 (1877). 
Diaphane slylosa, Salisb. Trans. Hort. Soc. I. p. 305 (1812). 
Iris imberbis, Asch. und Graebn. Syn. Mit. FI. III. p. 5 *4 ( ! 9o6). 
[Poiret's description begins with the words “ Iris juncea imberbis!' Klatt in Linnaea XXXiv. 570, 
misquotes this as Iris imberbis and Ascherson und Graebner, Syn. Mit. FI. III. 514. accordingly 
make I. imberbis the name of the species !] 
Iris mauritanica, Ker-Gawl. in Kon. and Sims, Ann. Bot. I. p. 244 (1804)* 
Distribution. North Africa and Sicily 1 . 
Sicily. Palma, 1847, Tineo (K) (V) (B). 
1 The statement that .this species is a native of Liguria rests on Gussone’s citation (v. supra) of specimens collected at Porto 
Maurizio on the Riviera di Ponente by Gentili and at Porta degli Angeli near Genoa by De Notans. The statement is unverified. 
Specimens from the Sena de Monsanto near Lisbon are I. xiphium var. lusttamca. 
